Note that comments to the FCC are a little different than a letter to your Congressman, in that they have legal significance. The comments become a part of the record that may be reviewed by a court if the agency's rules are challenged. The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to set aside agency rules that are, among other things, "arbitrary and capricious." In issuing final rules, agencies will generally respond to the major issues raised by the comments, because otherwise parties may challenge the rule in court arguing that the agency acted arbitrarily by ignoring a major aspect of the issue.<p>On a general note, I don't get the cynicism as to the FCC's intentions here. The FCC already passed net neutrality rules, and those rules were struck down by the D.C. Circuit. Internet companies have argued that the FCC could implement net neutrality if they regulated internet service providers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, but the FCC desperately wants to find a way to avoid doing that. Not because it doesn't want net neutrality, but because Title II is a big regulatory regime with a lot of baggage.<p>You have to understand that none of this is taking place in a vacuum. There is a general regulatory paradigm that's in vogue at the FCC. The FCC has been thrilled with the results of its "light touch" approach to cellular wireless regulation. That's the mantra of post-Clinton liberals: "we'll have regulations, but lightweight ones." Title II is an FDR-era piece of legislation that is anything but lightweight. Regulating the internet under Title II would invoke a firestorm of criticism from conservatives as well as centrist-liberals who see it as inconsistent with how regulatory agencies should operate in the modern era.